|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 54 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Additional Tax On Urban Assets, Business Premises, Exemption From Additional Tax, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... R 234 was taken in appeal by way of SLP before the Supreme Court (SLPS. Nos. 5653 and 5655 of 1981). The Supreme Court rejected the Special Leave Petitions. It is so seen from 1983 144 ITR (Statutes) 12. We concur with the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Singh s case 1980 123 ITR 558. The Appellate Tribunal, following the said decision, held that the running of the rubber estate is certainly a business and in view of the said decision, the assessee would be entitled to exemption in respect of additional wealth-tax. In the light of the above discussion, the said decision is justified in law. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 referred to us in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We answer question No. 2 in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (7) TMI 53 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... r share of profits in the firm could not be included in the total income of the assessee. The provisions of section 64(1)(i) of the Act were, therefore, not attracted. The reference to the provisions of section 187 of the Act was not warranted in the circumstances of the case. That provision is attracted in dealing with the assessment of a firm, where, at the time of making an assessment, it is found that a change has occurred in the constitution of the firm. The provisions of section 87 cannot be imported in considering the applicability of the provisions of section 64(1)(i) of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the income of the wife of the assessee from the firm was rightly included in the total income of the assessee. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1987 (7) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... t dated December 29, 1967, to which registration was granted ceased to be a genuine firm on the minor attaining majority, since the shares of the partners in the losses thereafter which, admittedly, had undergone change, were not specified in any document. Therefore, even if it is assumed but not accepted that registration was already granted for the assessment year 1976-77, the Income-tax Officer, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, would be fully justified in cancelling the registration. Cancellation would have been bad in law only when the assessee-firm had continued with the constitution as specified in the instrument dated December 29, 1967, with the same share ratio in the profits and losses as evidenced by that instrument. For the above reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was right in restoring the order of the Income-tax Officer. We accordingly answer the question as formulated by us and the question as referred to us by the Tribunal in the affirmative.
-
1987 (7) TMI 51 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penal Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ection 216 is not attracted (Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1980 122 ITR 251 (AP)). We note that the assessee had paid only Rs. 9,000 by way of advance tax in the second instalment. Taking into account the amount paid by the assessee in the final instalment, i.e., Rs. 1,38,000, the correct amount of advance tax which should have been paid by the assessee in the second instalment would be Rs. 73,500 and not Rs. 9,000. The balance, i.e., Rs. 64,500, would be deemed to have been paid by the assessee along with the final instalment on March 14, 1977. There was a delay of three months and for the period of delay, interest had been charged at the rate of 12 per annum on Rs. 64,500. On calculation, the amount of interest would be about Rs. 1,935. For this insignificant amount, we are not inclined to prolong the proceedings further. Accordingly, we dispose of this reference by declining to answer the question referred. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1987 (7) TMI 50 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... he first day of the computation period, was within the rule-making authority of the Central Board under section 80J(1) (iii) that, since rule 19A did not suffer from any infirmity and was valid in its entirety, the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, in so far as it amended section 80J, by incorporating the provisions of rule 19A, as sub-section (1A) in section 80J, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1972, was merely clarificatory in nature and was, accordingly, valid. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was thus not justified and correct in holding that deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is allowable to the assessee on the entire amount claimed to be the capital invested by the assessee in its industrial undertaking including borrowed capital, ignoring the provisions of rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The reference is answered in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Parties will bear their own costs of this court.
-
1987 (7) TMI 49 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the contract was in the nature of capital expenditure since it bestowed on the assessee benefit of a permanent nature. Though the criteria like duration for which the arrangement under the contract was to prevail, whether the amount was spent once for all or it was of a recurring nature are relevant considerations, none of them by itself is conclusive of the matter. After giving my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, the terms of the agreements entered into between the assessee and Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee and the principles enunciated in the decisions discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the view that the departmental authorities and the Tribunal committed no error in holding that the expenditure in question was not revenue expenditure but capital expenditure and hence not admissible for deduction as claimed by the assessee. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative. K., P. MOHAPATRA J.-I agree.
-
1987 (7) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Interest, Penalty, Waiver ... ... ... ... ..... en urged by counsel for the petitioner that since the order under section 273A of the Act was passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax on February 23, 1981, and the amount of tax had been deposited on February 8, 1980, that is, prior to the passing of the order, the petitioner had made substantial compliance with the requirement of clause (c) of section 273A(1) and consequently was entitled to the relief of waiver even in regard to interest and penalty referred to above. Suffice it to say, so far as this submission is concerned, that it is settled law that equitable considerations have no place in tax matters and the petitioner could be granted relief of waiver only if he had complied with the requirement of clause (c). Waiver obviously could not be granted on the basis of substantial compliance. In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Outstanding security amount be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1987 (7) TMI 47 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd to show that the assessee had concealed any income. The concealment of income was writ large on the record. In my view, even if we were to brush aside the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), concealment would be obvious even upon the authority of the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC). In my view, therefore, the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 8,610 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner upon the assessee. For the reasons stated above, I hold in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and hold that the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act upon the assessee. The reference is thus answered in favour of the Revenue but without costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1987 (7) TMI 46 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... 74 96 ITR 612 (Delhi). We should state that the decision in Mahabir Prasad Poddar v. ITO 1975 102 ITR 478 (Cal) also is distinguishable. It is evident from page 483 of 102 ITR that the notices for reopening were not challenged in the proceedings in that case. The assessments which were made pursuant to the notices alone were challenged. That makes all the difference. It should also be noticed that the decisions in In re Radhey Lal Balmukand 1942 10 ITR 131 (All) and Mohd. Haneef v. CIT 1955 27 ITR 447 (All) were rendered long before the Supreme Court decisions, mentioned in page 84 above. In the result, we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and we answer question No. 2 referred to us also in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment shall be sent by the Registrar of this court, under his signature and seal, to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (7) TMI 45 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Hindu undivided family. The only question for 1964-65 and the first question for 1965-66 are thus answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The second question for 1965-66 must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Learned senior standing counsel stated at the Bar that the second question referred for the assessment year 1965-66 arose in 1964-65 as well. That appears to be so from the orders of the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In that situation, for both the assessment years, the director s remuneration must be excluded from the total income of the Hindu undivided family. The references are thus answered as mentioned above. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Assistant Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1987 (7) TMI 44 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Charitable Or Religious Institution, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... ents (i.e., investments made by applying the 1/4th income of each year) itself was again to be applied substantially and essentially to benefit the descendants of the settlor, since half of it will again go by way of provision to the settlor s descendants and when a substantial portion of the income from the augmentation (investments) should again go to the benefit of the descendants, it was clear that the application of income by way of augmentation of corpus really benefited only the descendants and took the character of a private trust. The ratio of the said decision has absolutely no application herein. So, we answer question No. referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The answer to question No. 2 depends upon actual calculation and quantification by the Income-tax Officer. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar may be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1987 (7) TMI 43 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Company, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... y shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and punished accordingly, yet it would appear there is no point in proceeding against the company, whether it amounts to abuse of the process of court or not. Since as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 1824, that there is no statutory compulsion to prosecute a company along side the officers or persons in charge of and responsible to the company and such officers or the persons responsible to the company may be prosecuted without prosecuting the company and it appears, these criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner-company, being futile, deserve to be quashed. In the result and for the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings instituted as against the petitioner-company in C.C. Nos. 4 to 17 of 1982, on the file of the Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, are quashed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 42 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ndisclosed income of the assessee was based on surmises and conjectures and was arrived at by failing to take into consideration the relevant material and the circular of the Board. In reply, learned counsel for the Revenue contended that no question of law arose out of the order passed by the Tribunal. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the following question of law does arise in this case Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for holding that the sum of Rs. 35,000 credited in the account of Smt. Shilabai represented the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1978-79 from undisclosed sources ? The application is accordingly allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state the case and to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this application.
-
1987 (7) TMI 41 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... Revenue to prove that the assessee did not furnish accurate particulars of income and was guilty of fraud or gross or wilful neglect on his part. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to question No. 1, referred to us, is that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the assessee had discharged the onus cast on it under the statutory Explanation below section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Our answer to question No. 2 is that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in law in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 20,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In other words, both the questions referred to us are answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal shall now determine the quantum of penalty in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 40 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... ll the building, plant or machinery is erected or constructed is part of the actual cost of the project within the meaning of section 33 read with section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purposes of development rebate claimed by the assessee. Again, this was case of a new factory being set up for the first time. Similar is the view taken by the Madras High Court in CIT v. L. G. Balakrishnan and Bros. (P.) Ltd. 1974 95 ITR 284, holding that the interest paid on the amount borrowed for the purchase of machinery had rightly been capitalised as part of the cost of the machinery and the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee s claim for depreciation and development rebate on this amount also. This was also a case of starting a new business. The questions are answered accordingly, the first question in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and the second in the negative in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 39 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Extra Shift Depreciation Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... 0 ITR 471 (Bom) and Addl. CIT v. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh 1982 136 ITR 645 (Delhi)). This court has also taken the same view in a series of decisions. They are Rajarajeswari Weaving Mills v. ITO 1978 113 ITR 405, CIT v. B. Al. Edward, India Sea Foods 1979 119 ITR 334 FB and CIT v. T. S. Venkiteswaran 1979 120 ITR 675. It is too late in the day for the Revenue to contend that the circular issued by the Board of Revenue is only an administrative direction or that it will not bind the Department or that it shall not be given effect to, since it goes beyond or deviates from the terms of the statute. As stated, the circular supplants the law and not supplements the law. In the light of the above position in law, we are satisfied that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in giving effect to the Circular dated September 28, 1970. In our opinion, no referable question of law arises out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. We hold that there is no merit in this O.P. It is dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 38 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Appeal To AAC, Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... order, is unauthorised. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner exercised his powers vested in him under section 31 of the Act. He did not invoke the jurisdiction under section 36 of the Act. If in the exercise of his powers vested in him under section 31 of the Act, it resulted in an enhancement, which he was competent to do, it will not be rendered invalid merely because the rectification could also have been effected by the assessing authority in the exercise of his powers under section 36 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal was justified in affirming the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. We are of the view that the decision of the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law. We answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In answering question No. (i), we should state that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could invoke his powers of enhancement under section 31 of the Act for correcting the mistakes.
-
1987 (7) TMI 37 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... erent periods as claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved by this ultimate direction, the Revenue has come up in reference to this court. It is obvious that the Tribunal having held that it is a case of mere change in the constitution of the firm and not of succession, it had to logically flow from this finding that it is a case governed by section 187 of the Act and the income for the two periods had to be clubbed together for making one assessment. Obviously, section 188 is attracted only when section 187 is inapplicable. The ultimate direction by the Tribunal to make two assessments is, therefore, not sustainable. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee as under The Tribunal having held that it is a case of change in the constitution of the firm within the meaning of section 187(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it was not justified in directing the making of two separate assessments instead of one for the entire period. No costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Commission Payment, Payment Under Voluntary Retirement Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... n rejecting the petitioner s request for reference on this question, particularly as the exact amount of which the assessee is entitled to deduction has been left to be verified by the Income-tax Officer. Question No. 9 reads as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct both on facts and in law in holding that the retrospective amendment of the provisions of section 80J are not applicable in this case and thereby restoring the matter back to the file of the Income-tax Officer for a fresh decision ? Counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not press this question in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lohia Machines Ltd. 1985 152 ITR 308. This question cannot, therefore, be directed to be referred. To sum up, none of the questions merit any reference to this court. The application, therefore, fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1987 (7) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Body Of Individuals ... ... ... ... ..... body of individuals. We are unable to agree with learned standing counsel for the Revenue that merely because they sold these import entitlements which they inherited from the deceased and divided the income arising therefrom, they must be deemed or must be held to have carried on the business. We find it difficult to agree that mere sale of these entitlements constitutes a business or constituted the business of the alleged body of individuals. Once we hold that no business was carried on by the wife and four minor sons of the deceased, it follows that they cannot be taxed as a body of individuals, even applying the test enunciated by this court in Deccan Wine and General Stores v. CIT 1977 106 ITR 111. In such a case, it is unnecessary for us to go into the question whether there was diversion by a superior or overriding title. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
....
|
